Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• httpA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: response body truncation with body_truncated flag, status >=400 sets isError, OAuth token caching and key fingerprints, session id hashing, retry exponential backoff defaults, SSRF guard conditions, and download path restrictions. This is exceptionally thorough.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is long but well-structured with clear section headers (Response bodies, BODY SELECTION, AUTH, etc.) and a one-line summary at the start. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly tighter given the complexity. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 34 parameters.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the high complexity, no sibling tools, and no output schema, the description covers response handling, body choices, authentication flows, sessions, retry, security, and all actions. It lacks explicit return value documentation for some actions (e.g., session_list), but is otherwise very complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value: mutual exclusivity of body types, defaults for timeout and retry, OAuth flow details (e.g., use_cache, auth_method defaults), and session id handling. It augments the schema substantially.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it's an 'HTTP client for LLMs' and lists all 18 distinct actions (e.g., request, get, post, oauth2_*), each with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates between similar actions like oauth2_device_start vs oauth2_device_poll, providing sufficient distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Extensive guidance on when to use each action is provided, such as 'oauth2_device_poll: status=pending is NOT an error — caller should retry' and the body selection choice. Security restrictions (SSRF guard, TLS) are also given. Since there are no sibling tools, explicit when-not-to-use statements are absent, but the context is clear.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.